|
Friendship is no plant of
hasty growth,
Though planted in Esteem’s deep fixed soil;
The gradual culture of kind intercourse
|ust bring it to perfection.
Joanna Baillie.
As govern’d well or ill,
States sink or rise;
State ministers, as upright or corrupt,
Are halm or poison in a nation’s veins;
Health or distemper; hasten or retard
The period of her pride, her day of doom.
Young.
In 1823 Miss Edgeworth
visited Scotland, was received as a most honoured guest at Abbotsford, and
remained some time in Edinburgh. Here she and Brewster commenced a most
cordial friendship, extending also to other members of the family, as
through his introduction she visited the Macphersons at Belleville, and
enjoyed exceedingly her Highland experiences. Miss Edgeworth and Dr.
Brewster carried on for many years a close and lively correspondence, in
which he found time to communicate many of the subjects which engrossed his
attention from time to time. With the exception of his correspondence with
Mr. Veitch, and his regular home letters in any time of absence, this seems
to have been almost the only long voluntary correspondence of general
interest which he ever entered into con amore. With so much necessary
writing to accomplish, he generally looked upon ordinary letter-writing as
an unpleasant task and a waste of precious time.
From the following letter we find that it was about this time that a subject
was brought prominently before Brewster, which at intervals much engrossed
his attention during the whole of his life. In his student days he had read
the letters of that mighty unknown man who levelled the weapons of the
fiercest denunciation and the most burning eloquence against the corruption
of States and. statesmen. The anonymous scabbard of “Junius” was all that
stood between him and condign punishment; and frail as the interposition
seemed, the preservation of his great secret is perhaps as wonderful as the
daring and grandeur of his sarcasm. As we have seen hinted by Dr. Andrew
Thomson, Brewster had perhaps somewhat profited by his perusal of the wit
and satire of Junius, but it was probably not till the incident mentioned in
his letter that the thought crossed him that he might discover the secret so
marvellously preserved:—
“Edinr., 10 Coates Crescent, Dec. 8, 1823. .
“My dear Miss Edgeworth,—I fear that you have thought me negligent in
allowing your kind and welcome letter to remain so long unacknowledged, but
I am not without hope that you have imagined some apology for me. I had
scarcely read your letter when my poor wife was taken so ill that I have
hardly been sensible that there were any persons in the world but ourselves.
She has now recovered so completely, however, by adding a little girl to our
group, that I have again begun my commerce with the world by discharging one
of the most agreeable of its duties. ... I had the pleasure of seeing a good
deal of your friend Dr. Brinkley. Among the great men of the present day, so
fatally characterised by want of principle of every kind, it is truly
refreshing to meet with such a man. I was no less delighted with his lady
and family, and ever since your visit and theirs to our metropolis, I have
indulged in many an air-built scheme of treading upon your green island. If
the spider goddess would only throw an iron web over the channel, or some
teredo of an engineer cut out a tunnel beneath, I should then expect to
realise these happy visions; but that boisterous Irish sea of yours is a sad
enemy to those who, like me, cannot float in tranquillity upon salt water.
“When you were in Edinburgh I was anxious to have shown you some curious
documents which I have collected respecting the author of ‘Junius' not only
because I know that you would be much interested in them, but because I
expected that you would give me some help in the inquiry. The subject is out
of my line of study, but, as it has crossed my path, I feel an obligation to
pursue it. In looking over some old papers of the late Mr. Macpherson of
Belleville, I found a packet of hurriedly-written notes on East-Indian
affairs, signed ‘Lachlan Macleane’ ”—both were confidential agents of the
Nabob of Arcot; Mr. Macpherson was one of the Government writers against
“Junius,” as “Scsevola,” and various other signatures]. “ The first that I
read had the following sentence :—‘The feelings of the man are not fine, but
he must be chafed into sensation,’—a passage so beautiful, and so like
Junius, that upon no other evidence I supposed that I had found out the
great secret. On a little reflection I recollected a story in Galt’s Life of
West, relative to ‘Junius,’ and was impressed with the belief that the name
of Macleane was used in it. This I found to be the case, and I have now
accumulated such a body of evidence that Henry Mackenzie, and many persons
here who are good judges of evidence, consider the point as nearly made out.
“Macleane was an Irishman, and his father, who was a Scotchman, was minister
of Kachry, near Belfast. He studied medicine at Edinburgh, and went out in
Otway’s regiment to Canada as an army surgeon. His talents were of that kind
that he became private secretary to General Monckton, commanding in the West
Indies, and he afterwards practised as a surgeon in Philadelphia. An
intrigue with one of his patients drove him from that city, and in crossing
the Atlantic in the same ship with Colonel Barry, this gentleman became
acquainted with his great talents, and recommended him to Lord Shelburne
(the late Marquis of Lansdowne), as Under Secretary of State. In this
capacity he acted for some time, till he and Lord Shelburne were turned out
of office by the Duke of Grafton’s ministry. Macleane lived in London during
all the time that Junius wrote. He was a great gambler and dabbler in the
funds, and made much money. It was well known that he moved in the first
political circles ; and though he and his party were out of office, he had a
splendid appointment created for him in India, namely, that of
Commissary-General in Bengal, with the emoluments of a Junior Counsellor.
This appointment was conferred upon this ex-secretary three months after
Junius ceased to write. On his return from India in 1780, he was lost with
all his papers in a vessel [‘a crazy vessel, commanded by a crazy captain,’
as he described it before sailing]’ which was never heard- of. His talents
were of the first order, but they were not generally recognised, as he
stammered greatly, and therefore never tried to shine in conversation.
“I have learned that he had two sisters resident in the North of Ireland,
but I have not been able to find their place of residence. It is very
probable that they could communicate some important facts. . . . Having thus
afflicted you with a long story, I must not try your patience any longer. A
packet came here a few days ago for Mrs. Macpherson, which, from its form
and specific gravity, I judged to be your tabinet. I sent it off
immediately, and I daresay you will in a few days hear of its' safe arrival.
“We are all impatient here for the appearance of St. Ronan’s Well, which is
said to be excellent. I was highly amused a few days ago at the anniversary
dinner of the Antiquarian Society, to see Sir Walter joining in all the
honours, when the ‘Author of Waverley’ was given as a toast. He is in great
health and spirits. Mrs. B. joins me in kindest compliments to you and Miss
Harriet and Miss Sophia, and I am, my dear Miss Edgeworth, ever most
faithfully yours, D. Brewster.”
Brewster turned his energies most characteristically at this and other times
towards unearthing "the mighty boar of the forest,” as Burke termed Junius,
sparing no pains by correspondence in Scotland, England, Ireland, and
America to get new facts bearing on the weird authorship, Lachlan Macleane
being, however, his favourite claimant to the doubtful distinction. He thus
collected much fresh and important evidence in favour of Macleane : his
birth as an Irishman, yet his intimate connection with, and knowledge of
Scotland, the frequent terse and technical medical references scattered
throughout Junius, the similarity of handwriting, the identity of dates
between the first publication of the letters and Macleane, with his patron,
going out of office; and again, the sudden stoppage of the warfare just
before Macleane got the sop of a lucrative appointment, bestowed under very
unlikely circumstances, and the appearance of his supposed portrait in a
curious contemporary print found in Dublin, called “ The Tripartite Junius.”
These, with many, other curious particulars, Brewster gave to the reading
world in two most interesting and clearly written articles in the North
British Review, in which he submitted the arguments in favour of Sir Philip
Francis, Lord George Sackville, Colonel Barre, Lord Temple, and Lord
Lyttleton? to a most searching and critical investigation. His own arguments
for Macleane, if they did not carry entire conviction to the public,
certainly created a strong rival to the claims of Sir Philip Francis, the
only other formidable competitor. To avoid recurrence to the subject, I may
mention here that the Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis, by Mr. Parker and Mr.
Merivale, published in 1867, was the last secular book which my father read.
It occupied him greatly; he particularly requested his daughter-in-law to
read it, and he said to her that though “not convinced,” it had “greatly
staggered” his previous firmly held views of the authorship of Junius.
Brewster’s admiration of the composition, intellect, and eloquent
denunciation of wickedness in high places, found to perfection in the
writings of Junius, was intense. The following extracts from the North
British Review, while offering an eloquent apology for Junius, may be taken
as a recognition both of his vices and his virtues :—
“There are infirmities, however,—there are even vices, which shrink from the
public gaze, and which neither invite our imitation nor demand our rebuke.
Charity throws her veil over insulated immoralities, into which great and
good men may be occasionally betrayed, and which accident or malignity may
have placed before the public eye. When remorse or shame pursue the
offender, public censure may well be spared. Vice has no attractive phase
when the culprit is seen in sackcloth or in tears. But when licentiousness
casts its glare from a throne, or sparkles in the coronet of rank, or stains
the ermine of justice, or skulks in the cleft of the mitre, or is wrapped up
in the senatorial robe, or cankers the green wreath of genius; when acts of
political corruption or public immorality are mingled with individual,
domestic, or social vices, courting imitation or applause, and offering
violence to the feelings and principles of the community, it becomes the
duty of the patriot and the moralist to hold up to public shame the enemies
of public virtue. Such a patriot and moralist was Junius. The flash of his
mental eye scathed as with a lightning-stroke the minions of corruption, and
men paused in their career of political mischief in order to avoid the fate
of his victims. Envenomed with wit and winged with sarcasm, his shafts
carried dismay into the ranks of his adversaries, and they struck deeper
into their prey in proportion to the polish with which they had been
elaborated ; and when he failed to annoy and dislodge his antagonist by the
light troops of his wit and ridicule, he brought up in reserve the heavy
artillery of a powerful and commanding eloquence. In thus discharging the
duties of a public censor, and in defending, at the risk of his life, the
laws and constitution of his country, we may admire the courage of Junius,
and even proffer to him our gratitude, though we disown his political
principles and disapprove of his conduct. The good done by Junius has lived
after him ; let the evil be interred with his bones. But though the
character of Junius, while he himself remains in the shade, may be pure and
noble, it may assume a different aspect when he is identified. Were Lord
Chatham or Lord Sackville, or Burke or Sir Philip Francis, to stand forth as
Junius, his morality would disappear, and his patriotism sink into
disaffection and disloyalty ; and were either Barre or Macleane to be
honoured with his laureis, we must brand them as traitors to the cause which
they advocated, and as men who bartered their obligations to the community
for a mess of pottage.
“It is always instructive, and now more than ever, to beware of patriots, to
scrutinise the pretensions of popular leaders, and to estimate the value of
their labours. Junius was a very moderate reformer, liberal in his political
views, but hostile to innovation. His object was to defend constitutional
rights, and not to create them. It was ‘the unimpaired hereditary freehold5
which he strove to bequeath to posterity. It was the ‘liberty of the
press—the palladium of all the civil, political, and religious rights of
Englishmen,5 and the right of juries to return a general verdict, for which
he combated. Had he lived in the present day, he would neither have been a
Eepealer nor a Confederate nor a Chartist. He would have hesitated even to
extend the suffrage till the people were fit to exercise it, for he declared
both liberty and property would be precarious till the people had acquired
sense and spirit to defend them. Education and religious knowledge must
precede the extension of political privileges. No person is entitled to a
political right till he has learned how to use it; no man is qualified for a
trust till he knows how to fulfil it. The rights of the subject are not the
rights of an individual, but the rights of the community; and he who either
prostitutes or sells such a birthright, dishonours and robs every member of
the community to whom the same inheritance has been bequeathed.’’
The following request and response are in letters without dates, but must
have been written about this time. Miss Edgeworth writes :—
“I am writing a philosophical tale upon the dangers and follies, tragic and
comic, of ‘Taking for granted.’ I wish you would help me to a few good
instances either in science or common life. I asked Sir H. Davy, and he gave
me one on demand. People having at first token for granted that stones,
commonly called thunder-stones or moon-stones, could not have fallen from
the moon or planets, prevented all inquiry or reasoning, and made others
take for granted they must be thrown from volcanoes. I am sure you could
furnish me with better instances.”
Dr. Brewster gave a ready response :—
“I fear my instances of ‘taking for granted’ may have too much prose or
pedantry in them for your use, but if they suit you I could easily give you
more, as almost all the grave blunders which mark the history of science are
referable to that source of error. The most remarkable example that has ever
fallen in my way is that of Sir Isaac Newton in his celebrated analysis of
the Prismatic Spectrum. He took it for granted that at equal refractions the
length of the spectrum was the same for all substances of which his prism
could be made; or, in other words, that all bodies had the same dispersive
power. So thoroughly had he taken this for granted, that his eye seems to
have been blind upon this subject alone; for though he used spectra formed
by water, and by different kinds of glass, yet he never saw, what is easily
seen, that they are very different in magnitude at equal angles of
refraction. Hence he missed the great discovery of the achromatic telescope,
which he must have invented instantly had he not indulged in ‘ taking for
granted.’ Nay, he was so convinced that there was no difference in the
spectra, that he actually prevented others from making the very experiments
which every person presumed he must have made.
“It is now curious to observe, that while taking for granted deprived Sir
Isaac of the honour of inventing the achromatic telescope, the very same
invention was afterwards made in consequence of Euler taking for granted
that the human eye was an achromatic instrument, which it is not. Conceiving
that all the works of the Almighty must be perfect, he conceived that the
errors of colour must be corrected in the human eye, forgetting that the
supreme wisdom might be evinced in making that organ perfect, without any
such correction. He therefore set about computing the curvature of lenses of
glass and water for making telescopes, and out of the experiments and
inquiries which sprang from this investigation of Euler arose the achromatic
telescope, one of the finest inventions of modern times.
“It was then discovered, and proved beyond a doubt by Hr. Blair, that the
opposite spectra formed by two kinds of glass, or two fluids, could not
correct one another, as in each spectrum the coloured spaces had different
proportions. The result was that there was a secondary spectrum left which
affected all achromatic telescopes. The remedy for this Hr. Blair
discovered, and he produced what he called a planatic telescope, in which
all colour was perfectly corrected by three media or more. Notwithstanding
all this, Hr. Wollaston took it for granted that what he could not detect
with his eye could not exist; and in a paper on the spectrum, broadly
asserts that in all the spectra which he could form, the colours had the
same proportion in similar positious of the prism. This was a great mistake
; the effect, which he did not see, required to be looked for carefully,
and, in some cases, to be magnified ; and there is no doubt that Hr. Blair’s
doctrine is the right one. England used to supply the whole world with
achromatic telescopes, but from the want of glass it became difficult to
make them of a large size. It was literally taken for granted that
flint-glass could not be made pure and free of veins in large pieces, and
nobody ever made any attempt to manufacture it. A poor Swiss peasant
imagined that he could succeed, and after many trials he was perfectly
successful. He taught the art to Frauenhofer of Munich, who has made the
most magnificent telescopes that were ever seen, and deprived England not
only of her trade in this article, but of all her practical glory.
“You see that I cannot keep myself out of a dissertation, so that I shall
not make any more such demands upon your patience, unless you tell me that
such examples as the above will suit you.”
Another source of great interest arose from the following lively request of
Miss Edgeworth’s, dated Oct. 9th, 1823 :—
“ . . . I hope Mrs. Brewster’s health continues to improve, and that fehe is
not now confined to her sofa. The half hour I spent with her was very short
and very sweet. I hope the boys go out sometimes without their great-coats!
I am much tempted to make a bold request of you, and to give you what I know
you hate above all things—a great deal of trouble. I am writing a sequel to
my father’s 'Harry and Lucy,’ which I am naturally desirous should be worthy
of his beginning. But this is a hard battle to me, as I have not, what I
once heard a gentleman boast he possessed, ‘a leetle scientific knowledge
that came naturally.’ Whatever I have, came very unnaturally, and with hard
labour, and most of it from your Encyclopedia, and others. My wish would be
to send you some parts of ‘ Harry and Lucy ’ to look over before going to
press. But from this I am deterred by the hatred which I feel myself to
looking over other people’s mss. and correcting them. I know, moreover, from
your own dear bosom friends (who by the bye are always the people who tell
one’s snug faults) that you are one of the most indolent philosophers
extant—a bold word—and that you never can bring yourself to finish your own
undertakings for the press, even till the last gasp, though all the
printers’ devils are waiting for and urging you !
“Then how much the less could I expect that you should correct for me, who
am neither devil quite, nor angel quite, nor anything at all to you?
“Then, supposing your good-nature, chivalry, Quixotism, or some of what
becomes a Scottish gentleman-philosopher, should work and egg you up to
accept this troublesome task, which all the while would go against your
natural stomach, there remains the difficulty of transmitting the pages of
the ms. to you. Not a soul or body near but has too much conscience to be
obliging, as they used to be, in franking large packets, before the
Deformation and the Commissioner came to Ireland. So I give it up, and only
write this to divert you some fine day when you have grown too pale over the
midnight lamp.”
The plan was not given up, however ; officials proved obliging, the “
Scottish gentleman-philosopher” was characteristically accessible, and all
the mss. of the “ Sequel to Harry and Lucy ” were subjected, not only to Dr.
Brewster’s scientific criticism, but were read aloud to his four boys, in
order to judge of the effect of the mixture of science and story on juvenile
minds. The intense interest it excited was a true presage of the popularity
which, when published, it continued so deservedly to meet with from all
intelligent youthful readers. The philosopher threw himself into this
occupation with all his heart, as is evident from the letters of judicious
advice, criticism, and encouragement which accompanied each returned packet.
I give some interesting extracts from these :—
°“Feb. 7, 1824.
“ I have safely received your different packets. I now return Nos. 4, 5, and
6, which have afforded much pleasure to my young people, and which I am sure
they thoroughly understand. I do not think these are capable of improvement.
I would only suggest the introduction of the Chinese fish or serpents (as
they are called), which are made of thin ivory, as a striking illustration
of the effects of moisture. ... In two days you will receive Nos. 7-10.
After succeeding with the steam-engine, I expect that you will soon be found
trespassing upon my manor among telescopes and microscopes and double
refractors. If you continue to let the game pass through my hands, I shall
be gentle with you before the justices, and have no doubt that they will
reverse the order of their judgment by being less severe upon the last than
upon the first offence.”
“10 Coates Crescent, Edinr., March 19, 1824.
“My dear Miss Edgeworth,—I return your packet, and have been much gratified
with the very perspicuous account which you * have given of the phenomena of
mother-of-pearl. The only remark that occurs to me is, that the reader might
suppose that there are no other colours in mother-of-pearl but the
superficial or communicable ones, while in reality there are others winch
are produced in the interior, and are therefore not communicable to wax.
“There is also a very extraordinary fact respecting these communicable
colours in mother-of-pearl which deserves to be mentioned. One set of these
colours is produced by the right side of the grooves, and another set by the
left side of the grooves, and both of them are distinctly seen when the
mother-of-pearl is 'polished: but when the polish is removed by rough
grinding, one of the sets invariably disappears. The rough grinding,
therefore, destroys the effect of one side of the grooves without affecting
the other, a result which I have never been able to explain satisfactorily.
“Mrs. B. and I will read with much pleasure the work you mention, and I am
most anxious to see Ireland with my own eyes. I shall certainly make a great
exertion to obtain this gratification this summer, but the exertion is great
to those who, like me, are entangled in business, in country concerns, with
children and printers’ devils, and a lawsuit to boot.”
“10 Coates Crescent, Edinr., April 2, 1824.
“. . . I am almost afraid to put down in writing another observation, and
yet it would be a weakness to omit it. The passage you quote from the Scotch
novel relative to Mr. Watt is quite overstrained, and, in every respect,
utterly incorrect. No man ever admired Mr. Watt more than I did, and I was
peculiarly fortunate in corresponding with him during the last years of his
life, and enjoying a good deal of his society, both here and at his own
house. I admired him, however, for what he did, and not for what he never
thought of doing ; and I confess that I have been guilty, under the
influence of personal attachment, of writing of his labours in very
exaggerated strains. Mr. Watt’s great invention was to improve the
steam-engine by the use of a separate condenser; but great as this was, I am
convinced that steam-boats and steam-engines would have been in the same
state of perfection at this moment had Mr. Watt never lived. I do not mean
to say that any person would have improved the low-pressure steam-engine by
the invention of a separate condenser ; but I maintain that the
high-pressure engine, where there is no condensation at all, and which Mr.
Watt and all his friends (including myself) reviled as of inferior utility,
is in every respect superior to the low-pressure engine, and would have
accomplished all the great operations of modern times, even if the
low-pressure engine and a separate condenser had never been heard of.
“Nay, I am disposed to think that the obstinate adherence of Mr. Watt and
his friends to the low-pressure engine, long after accurate experiments,
made and recorded in Cornwall, had demonstrated the superiority of
high-pressure ones, has done much to retard the progress of invention
respecting this engine. The same obstinacy is at this moment opposing the
invention of Mr. Perkins, which is a step as far above the high-pressure
engine as that was above the low-pressure one, even if Mr. Perkins realises
only one-third of the power which he expects.
“The author of Waverley has, moreover, forgotten the practical excellence of
Boulton’s steam-engine, which drained mines and coalpits as successfully as
Mr. Watt’s, from which it differed chiefly in having a greater appetite for
fuel.
“When the poet or the orator is called upon to declaim upon any great
national invention, his art requires that it should be associated with one
great name. The imagination can as little tolerate the subdivision of
praise, as it does that of labour; and hence, whenever the objects of
science or art come within its domains, all individuality is lost either in
the brilliancy or obscurity of its creations.
“You would oblige me much by giving me the information you mention on double
stars, in which I take a very great interest. I suppose the discoveries are
those of Mr. Herschel, who has been long occupied with this curious
subject.”
Miss Edgeworth seems somewhat to have misunderstood Dr. Brewster’s plain
speaking, as was often the case with his statements, which were generally
made with no other thought than the subject immediately before him. He
writes, in answer to a letter of hers :— “I owe you one grudge, however, for
supposing that I would not be pleased with the meeting in honour of Mr.
Watt. I am sure that I expressed myself hastily on that subject, otherwise
you could not have misunderstood me; but I am glad to be able to say that I
had attended the Edinburgh meeting on the very day preceding that on which I
was favoured with your letter.” If not able to see eye to eye with many of
Mr. Watt’s friends on the subject of the steam-engine, it is pleasant to see
the full justice which Brewster did to Watt long afterwards upon the
priority of his discovery of the Composition of Water. The biographer of
Watt thus writes :—“As an instance of the change which was wrought by the
force of truth on the convictions of others equally distinguished, we may
mention a most eminent philosopher, who having, at a former period, on the
imperfect information then open to him, been disposed to support the claims
of Cavendish, on fully studying the fresh evidence which the correspondence
of Mr. Watt first made public, unhesitatingly professed his entire
conversion ; and in one of those eloquent essays by which he has so often
adorned the progress of scientific discovery, publicly announced, as the
conclusion at which he had arrived, that the argument for Mr. Watt’s
priority ‘had now been placed on a sound and impregnable basis.' That the
name of Sir David Brewster should be known throughout the whole civilised
world by the most brilliant discoveries in the most beautiful of sciences,
can scarcely be deemed more honourable to him as a man, than the perfect
candour which he thus displayed ; and such unreserved testimony,
spontaneously borne under such circumstances, by such an authority, has
evidently a most conclusive bearing on the question in regard to which it
was delivered.”
Another strongly expressed opinion meets us in this letter, from which he
never receded, as the same sentiments are as decidedly stated in his Memoirs
of Sir Isaac Newton, published more than thirty years afterwards :—
“April 26, 1824.
“I would strongly recommend the omission of the passages about Lord Bacon in
pages 703, 704, even if you should not agree with me in the opinion which I
am about to state. The opinion so prevalent during the last thirty years,
that Lord Bacon introduced the art of experimental inquiry on physical
subjects, and that he devised and published a method of discovering
scientific truth, called the method of induction, appears to me to be
without foundation, and perfectly inconsistent with the history of science.
This heresy, which I consider as most injurious to the progress of
scientific inquiry, seems to have been first propagated by D’Alembert, and
afterwards fostered in our University by Mr. Stewart and Mr. Playfair, three
men of great talent, but not one of whom ever made a single discovery in
physics.
“It is an undoubted fact that Kepler, Galileo, and Huygens were as well
acquainted with the method of conducting scientific inquiries as any
philosophers that have flourished since the time of Bacon; Dr. Gilbert of
Colchester, before Bacon’s time, gave the most perfect specimens of the
method of investigating truth by experiment and observation ; and he speaks
in the strongest language of the absolute inutility and folly of all other
methods. Leonardo da Vinci too speaks in the strongest terms of the
omnipotence of experiment and facts in all philosophical pursuits. It has
been said, however, by the admirers of Bacon, that though a few philosophers
knew the secret of making advances in science, yet the great body were
ignorant of it, and that Paracelsus, Van Helmont, and many others, were
guided in their inquiries by very inferior methods. In answer to this
argument, it is sufficient to say that in the present day there are numbers
of philosophers who are quite ignorant of the proper method of conducting
physical inquiries, and who follow their own whims and fancies as much as
Paracelsus and Van Helmont.
“If Bacon introduced any new method into science, it seems very strange that
his contemporaries never thanked him for it, nor seemed to be aware of it.
Sir Isaac Newton, who is invariably said by some modern writers to have made
all his discoveries by following Bacon’s rules, never once mentions either
Bacon or his method, and the good
Mr. Boyle is equally silent on the subject. If Bacon had never lived and
never written, science would have been just where it is at this moment.
“It seems quite clear that Bacon, who knew nothing either ot Mathematics or
Physics, conceived the ambitious design of establishing a general method of
scientific inquiry. This method, which he has explained at great length, is
neither more nor less than a crusade against Aristotle, with the words
experiment and observation emblazoned on his banner. This hue and cry about
experiment was so far good, that it was in a good cause. But the cry was old
; all men of talent had obeyed it, and those who did not, namely, the
charlatans of the day, were neither willing nor able to renounce their
speculations and extravagancies. These empirics had in former times some
hold on the public mind, which was then illiterate and ill-informed on all
points, whereas the same class of persons, who are as numerous as ever, are
kept in the background from the wide diffusion of sound knowledge and the
prevalence of sober opinions among all orders.
“The method given by Bacon is, independent of all this, quite useless, and
in point of fact has never been used in any successful inquiry. A collection
of facts, however skilfully they may be conjured with, can never yield
general laws unless they contain that master-fact in which the discovery
resides, or upon which the law mainly depends. It is often some hidden
relation, some deep-seated affinity, which is required to complete, or
rather to constitute, a great discovery; and this relation is often
discovered among the wildest conceptions and fancies after they have been
sobered down by the application of experiment and observation. The
extravagant speculations which often precede and lead to discovery differ in
no respect from the creations of a rich poetical fancy. Wild and
unsubstantial in themselves, they pass over the mind like a shadow, and it
is only when they are clothed in the imagery of external nature, and.
invested with the realities of human feeling, that they begin to exercise
their power over the heart.
“In short, it is just as true that Scott and Byron composed their works
under the tuition of Horace’s Art of Poetry, as it is that Newton made his
discoveries by following the method of Bacon. Horace, too, was a poet, and
capable of laying down some technicalities for the advantage of future
bards; but Bacon was no natural philosopher, and has even demonstrated the
utter inanity of his method by the ridiculous results to which he was led in
applying it to the subject of heat. The application of Horace’s maxim of
nonurn in annum premere would not more effectually extinguish all modern
poetry than the application of Bacon’s method would extinguish all modern
science.”
The following short extracts from some of the other letters may be given, as
showing the different topics of interest which were crossing Brewster’s path
at the time; the mutual friendship felt for “Sir Walter” showing itself by
frequent allusions throughout the correspondence. There appears to have been
a frequent interchange of plants and minerals between Edgeworthstown and
Coates Crescent:—
“I have forgotten to thank you for the American moss, which derives double
interest from its description iu Harry and Lucy. I have enclosed some
specimens of Tabasheer, a substance of extreme rarity and great interest as
a sort of mineral product of vegetation and in the next letter—“ I do not
remember if I mentioned to you when I sent you some Tabasheer, the singular
phenomena that relate to the distribution of silex in the cuticle of several
plants, and which gives them the power of polishing wood and even brass. I
enclose a brief printed notice of what I observed, which is given in Dr.
Greville’s Flora Edinensis.” The following is what was enclosed :—
SIR DAVID BREWSTER.
“Equisetum Hyemale—Rough Horsetail.—This species contains more silex beneath
its delicate epidermis than any other, and is consequently most employed in
polishing hard wood, ivory, and even brass. The silex is so abundant, that
the vegetable matter may be destroyed, and the form retained, as was
effected by Mr. Sivright.
“My friend Dr. Brewster has obligingly permitted me to consult an
unpublished paper, written by him on this subject. On subjecting a portion
of the cuticle to the analysis of polarised light under a high magnifying
power, Dr. Brewster detected a beautiful arrangement of the siliceous
particles, which are distributed in two lines parallel to the axis of the
stem, and extending over the whole surface. The greater number of the
particles form simple straight lines, but the rest are ‘ grouped into oval
forms, connected together like the jewels of a necklace, by a chain of
particles forming a sort of curvilineal quadrangle; these rows of oval
combinations being arranged in pairs.' Many of those particles which form
the straight lines do not exceed the 500th part of an inch in diameter. Dr.
Brewster also observed the remarkable fact, that each particle has a regular
axis of double refraction. In the straw and chaff of wheat, barley, oats,
and rye, he noticed analogous phenomena, but the particles were arranged in
a different manner, and ‘ displayed figures of singular beauty.’ From these
data, the Doctor concludes ‘that the crystalline portions of silex, and
other earths which are found in vegetable films, are not foreign substances
of accidental occurrence, but are integral parts of the plant itself, and
probably perform some important function in the processes of vegetable
life.”
“Jan. 8, 1827.
“Napoleon is now finished, excepting the Appendix. It has annoyed Sir Walter
more than any of his other productions. He said lately to a friend that he
did not know whether he would finish Napoleon or Napoleon finish him. . . .
Can you tell me if it is the opinion in Ireland that the salmon fry which go
down to the sea return in the shape of grilse ; or in the shape of sea
trout, finnocks, or whitlings ?”
£" . . I have such a love for Ireland that I would fain congratulate you, if
I could, on your prospects. You are under the influence of Paradise gas,
which, I fear, will neither fill your bread-baskets nor cover your
epidermis, nor change your masters. When the imagination has had its
triumphs, your cottagers will, I fear, discover that in the division of the
once forbidden fruit, the rich has seized the kernel and given them the
shell. How happy shall I be to confess to you some years hence the delusion
under which I write!
"Sir Walter Scott is just about to make a fortune by printing his novels at
a cheap rate for general circulation. Why should you not make ten thousand
pounds by doing the same?" |
